Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 160

Thread: Catch and release proposals -

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default Catch and release proposals -

    I just read a number of proposals that deal with catch and release. A couple would require barbless hooks when going to catch and release. So here is the Department's comment:

    However, we do not support a regulation requiring the
    practice because of the negative effects it would cause to sport fishing opportunity in the absence
    of a measurable biological benefit. The department is NEUTRAL on allocative aspects of this
    proposal.

    If you read the text of the comment they note that some states require this and others do not for various reasons. In States where it is required there are social and biological considerations.

    What gets me about the above comment is that it makes a determination that a metric for effect cannot be measured so reducing sport fishing opportunity is not acceptable to the Department. But then it says the department is neutral on the allocation aspects of this proposal. Is not reducing sport fishing opportunity regardless of a biological metric allocation?

    One can also question the Department comment on absence of a measurable impact of barbless hooks. How would one know that without a specific example where it is being applied and an evaluation of what constitutes a measurable metric. Also the absence of something does not mean it does not take place. States that have barbless hook regulations obviously think it has a measurable impact - the Department cites endangered species management as an example of an application.

    This is the type of comment that drives the public crazy. Obviously the Department does not want a barbless hook regulation because of opportunity concerns.

    To me the Department should in this case just state the facts on catch and release and barbless hooks and then take a neutral position.

    Comments on prohibiting catch and release fishing are in the same vein. The Department is opposed but is not catch and release fishing also a social issue? One does not need catch and release fishing when a fishery is nearly closed for conservation reasons. While I see the value of catch and release in certain situations I think the Department read the intent of the proposed regulations very narrowly. The proposals are not well thought out because there are situations that catch and release must happen - king salmon hooked in closed season while fishing for coho. However, that is not what the proposal writers are wanting. They do not want the Department to go to catch and release when the targeted fishery is nearly closed because of conservation reasons. I think the Department really did not want to get into this at the Board meeting so read these proposals very very narrowly.

    Another thing I found interesting in the whole sport fish vs commercial fishery comments is that the sport fish comments talk about reducing sport fishing opportunity but the commercial comments never mention commercial fishing opportunity as a goal. I just find that interesting as both are social issues and we know from studies in UCI that the social aspects of commercial fishing play a significant role in people's lives. Just interesting to see how the two fisheries are treated by the Department.

  2. #2

    Default

    Interesting observations Nerka.

    Didn't the decades-old report we still use to measure C&R mortality find a direct link between fish that were bleeding when released and increased mortality?

    Isn't there a study somewhere that would speak to the "measurable effect" of barbless hooks reducing bleeding?

    Also, I'm having a hard time understanding how barbless hooks decrease opportunity when C&R fishing. Absent of quantifiable mortality savings, the opportunity would remain identical - perhaps the opportunity for up close photo ops would be somewhat less for inexperienced fishermen. If we could quantify a savings, then opportunity would likely increase to the extent mortality was reduced, no?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default

    If you want to get into measurable metrics how the heck would one define sport fishing loss of opportunity between barb and barbless hooks after a period of time people adjust. Good catch tbsmith.

  4. #4

    Default

    Ah, the eternal barbless hook debate. A number of studies have attempted to quantify the effects but they appear to be so small as to be unquantifiable with any sort of reasonable experiment. Dan Schill of ID f&g published a nice paper on this awhile back. But of course any angler that has used barbless knows they don't hold fish as well and fish can be easier to unhook. So, many states has adopted barbless regs in response to the perceived but not quantified benefits.

  5. #5

    Default

    I think the opportunity debates reflects differences in the basic functional dynamics of sport and commercial fisheries.

    Commercial fishery value is generally based on weight of dead fish. The fishing power is high so the fishery can catch a lot of fish on a relatively small amount of time. The greater the catch per effort and the better the efficiency, up to processor capacity of course.

    Sport fishery value generally involves a more complex suite of measures including catch, catch rate and effort. The fishing power of the sport fishery is more cumulative and incremental. Opportunity is shorthand.

    Each fishery works the way it works and it makes no more sense to manage a sport fishery based on commercial values than visa versa.

  6. #6
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Barbless has been the law of the land for salmon in my neck of the woods for at least 15 years. Both in the ocean and for inside fisheries of Grays Harbor. Still manage to catch plenty to fill the fish box.

    Definitely makes releasing fish MUCH easier on the operator and results in significantly less tissue damage to the fish upon extraction. Decreased handling time decreases stress on the fish and improves survival because the fish can be released in an elegant "no touch" technique that requires no removal from the water and no additional forceful grasp to restrain the fish. Air time and prolonged handling are both implicated in reducing post-release survival. Barbless is simply better and easier on the fish... no one needs a study to prove it.

    This past year the Columbia River went barbless for the benefit of ESA-listed species and the Oregonians about had a cow. Barbs are an unneeded crutch for inept anglers. Final day on the Columbia this year, my crew went 23 for 30 on single barbless.

    If that's an opportunity loss, you'll never convince me.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  7. #7
    Member sisusuomi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Juneau near the glacier
    Posts
    117

    Default

    My wife and I have been using barbless flies on salmon, trout and steelhead for so many years I can't even remember. At first I was one pissed off dude but I quickly found that it made no difference to us, we still caught, landed, killed and released salmon, trout and steelhead. I haven't tried barbless hooks (circle hooks) on halibut but they probably will function as the regular hook do on the SST. If we are headed in that direction with halibut I just might experiment this summer on my gear, not my wife's as I don't want to get in hot water.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    I think the opportunity debates reflects differences in the basic functional dynamics of sport and commercial fisheries.

    Commercial fishery value is generally based on weight of dead fish. The fishing power is high so the fishery can catch a lot of fish on a relatively small amount of time. The greater the catch per effort and the better the efficiency, up to processor capacity of course.

    Sport fishery value generally involves a more complex suite of measures including catch, catch rate and effort. The fishing power of the sport fishery is more cumulative and incremental. Opportunity is shorthand.

    Each fishery works the way it works and it makes no more sense to manage a sport fishery based on commercial values than visa versa.
    No Bfish, the commercial fishery is not just about weight of dead fish. I use to think that until I got to know the families of commercial fisherman. In UCI set net families go back generations and their value system has commercial fishing as a major part of it.

    However, if you want to use opportunity to include catch, catch rates, and effort then these apply equal to the commercial fishery. They are not any different in concept that putting in windows in the commercial fishery, restriction of areas for the drift fleet, latter starting dates, and therefore a loss of opportunity to fish can be viewed for both fisheries.

    Relative to the barbless hook discussion the opposition was based on loss of opportunity and that is an allocation decision. Less catch, lower catch rates, and less effort all result in a shift in allocation. If the Department wanted to increase harvest because of a perceived loss of harvest they can increase bag limits, extend seasons,.... so opportunity is just a smoke screen.

  9. #9

    Default

    I in no way meant to discount the deep connections any fishing group has to the resource. Was just trying to make the point that the fisheries function much differently.

  10. #10
    Member FishGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fishing your hole before you get there
    Posts
    1,948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Barbless has been the law of the land for salmon in my neck of the woods for at least 15 years. Both in the ocean and for inside fisheries of Grays Harbor. Still manage to catch plenty to fill the fish box.

    Definitely makes releasing fish MUCH easier on the operator and results in significantly less tissue damage to the fish upon extraction. Decreased handling time decreases stress on the fish and improves survival because the fish can be released in an elegant "no touch" technique that requires no removal from the water and no additional forceful grasp to restrain the fish. Air time and prolonged handling are both implicated in reducing post-release survival. Barbless is simply better and easier on the fish... no one needs a study to prove it.

    This past year the Columbia River went barbless for the benefit of ESA-listed species and the Oregonians about had a cow. Barbs are an unneeded crutch for inept anglers. Final day on the Columbia this year, my crew went 23 for 30 on single barbless.

    If that's an opportunity loss, you'll never convince me.
    I agree with everything you mentioned and applaud those that use barbless hooks. The one "potential" downside to barbless hooks is deeper penetration into soft tissue. Since there is no barb to obstruct penetration, more force is transferred to the hook point. There's a Bristol Bay study that was done on barbless hooks and the interesting outcome was a higher mortality rate with barbless hooks compared to barbed hooks due to deeper penetration and ultimately resulting in nerve damage. I believe this study was done with rainbows though. I'll try to dig up the report for the sake of the discussion.
    Your bait stinks and your boat is ugly

  11. #11

    Default

    The whole barbless hook debate is indeed interesting. It is only an issue when discussing (perceived) non-consumptive (perhaps better stated as less-consumptive) fishing - C&R fishing. In a catch and kill fishery, barbed hooks make total sense as they minimize collateral damage.

    It makes sense that states where less-consumptive fishing is more popular have been using barbless hooks longer - both practices stem from the same ideology. Doc, your position on the two issues is a perfect example of that - and I mean that as a complement. At least you're consistent. Alaskans are still very harvest-oriented towards their resources.

    Ok, my point.

    I don't think I need to name the group or groups who were instrumental in bringing C&R fisheries mainstream to the Kenai, but what's interesting is that these same groups ultimately oppose barbless hooks.

    How many bird-watchers are opposed to banning lead shot?

    As I've said before, this group is so conflicted it's crazy. Hard to make logical arguments for their positions. I guess that's what all the money is for.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bfish View Post
    I in no way meant to discount the deep connections any fishing group has to the resource. Was just trying to make the point that the fisheries function much differently.
    This "deep" connection with the resource and lifestyle that NERKA so consistently defends is no deeper than the lifestyles that have been ended or ruined in the sport fishing lodge & guiding industry or in the personal use of salmon in the UCI.

    In-stream escapement in the UCI is a phantom of its former number with respect to fish. Equivocate all you want.

    I find the whole idea of C&R unacceptable at this time. If the resource is so minimal as to make a concession to C&R then close king salmon fishing in the entire UCI to commercial and personal use/sport fishing of all kinds for now.

    King fishing should be banned for now in the UCI and the run protected when they are in the inlet by forbidding any kind of catch of kings.

    To say that the lifestyle of a sett netter or drift net fisherman is any better than a boot-strap sport fishing lodge owner is getting more than nauseating to constantly read. It is in fact insulting to the intelligence and hard stomach.

    A recent economic study of sport and personal use fishing in the Mat-Su (UCI) indicates without a doubt that the economic and social returns of in-stream salmon escapement are greater than the value of those fish caught commercially in the UCI where those UCI streams and escapement are located. It is tiresome to hear about the plight of the com fish industry constantly repeated by NERKA. What are you? A paid advertisement?

    In the same vane, last year the UCI finally got a decent in-stream return of cohos of a decent size. The season started out with a return of small cohos that nearly all (as usual) had net scars. When the commercial fishing window was closed, in-stream fishermen and the resource finally saw larger cohos returning and good fishing, personal use, sport fish, C&R etc. for the people and wild systems in those many Mat-Su waters.

    I've been watching this occur for the last 32 years on Mat-Su streams. Close the fishing in the inlet and shazam! we get cohos and nice ones too.

    Again, the in-stream value of those kings and cohos far exceed the economic and social value of commercial fishing in the UCI affected waters. Fact.

    Its time for those folks to share in the misery as we all wait for and hope for the return of our kings. Personal use or what ever they call it at the mouths of those rivers along western UCI should be closed too. The resource is limiting. There is too much greed and room for management mistake. The politics of the situation is not conservation but vote taking.

    Just close it down. Time for others to reap the rewards of their own spotted owl they have created themselves.
    That country was so hungry even the ravens were packin' a lunch.... HUNGRY I tell ya'!!

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Woodsman View Post
    This "deep" connection with the resource and lifestyle that NERKA so consistently defends is no deeper than the lifestyles that have been ended or ruined in the sport fishing lodge & guiding industry or in the personal use of salmon in the UCI.

    In-stream escapement in the UCI is a phantom of its former number with respect to fish. Equivocate all you want.

    I find the whole idea of C&R unacceptable at this time. If the resource is so minimal as to make a concession to C&R then close king salmon fishing in the entire UCI to commercial and personal use/sport fishing of all kinds for now.

    King fishing should be banned for now in the UCI and the run protected when they are in the inlet by forbidding any kind of catch of kings.

    To say that the lifestyle of a sett netter or drift net fisherman is any better than a boot-strap sport fishing lodge owner is getting more than nauseating to constantly read. It is in fact insulting to the intelligence and hard stomach.

    A recent economic study of sport and personal use fishing in the Mat-Su (UCI) indicates without a doubt that the economic and social returns of in-stream salmon escapement are greater than the value of those fish caught commercially in the UCI where those UCI streams and escapement are located. It is tiresome to hear about the plight of the com fish industry constantly repeated by NERKA. What are you? A paid advertisement?

    In the same vane, last year the UCI finally got a decent in-stream return of cohos of a decent size. The season started out with a return of small cohos that nearly all (as usual) had net scars. When the commercial fishing window was closed, in-stream fishermen and the resource finally saw larger cohos returning and good fishing, personal use, sport fish, C&R etc. for the people and wild systems in those many Mat-Su waters.

    I've been watching this occur for the last 32 years on Mat-Su streams. Close the fishing in the inlet and shazam! we get cohos and nice ones too.

    Again, the in-stream value of those kings and cohos far exceed the economic and social value of commercial fishing in the UCI affected waters. Fact.

    Its time for those folks to share in the misery as we all wait for and hope for the return of our kings. Personal use or what ever they call it at the mouths of those rivers along western UCI should be closed too. The resource is limiting. There is too much greed and room for management mistake. The politics of the situation is not conservation but vote taking.

    Just close it down. Time for others to reap the rewards of their own spotted owl they have created themselves.
    Woodsman, you have managed to capture most of the myths of UCI fisheries in one post. Nice job.

    So the personal use salmon fishery is down - not according to ADF&G figures. From the start of the fishery to the present it has grown to nearly 500,000 fish harvested.

    Sport fish lodges and guides are ruined - not according to KRSA economic position. The industry is worth 800 million and Mr. Gease restated that today at the Kenai Chamber meeting. Some years are good and others bad but the industry has grown and is doing fine. If you are just a chinook salmon fishing guide in the Kenai then yes you have problems. But guides who fish multiple species testified at the March task force meeting they did not lose much as they switched to sockeye and other species. In the valley you cannot support the population of Anchorage and the Valley with just eastside streams. Lots of fish go into the Susitna River but most of them go to westside systems. This was known back in 1980 when the eastside systems had weekend only fisheries. Sorry, but no amount of fish can reverse that trend given the population boom.

    Banned king fishing in UCI in all fisheries - that will really help the sport fish lodge industry and personal use fisheries. There are trade offs in UCI and the late run chinook have met escapement goals every year. Harvest is down but spawner numbers are in the maximum sustained yield range.
    So lets close everything down to put more chinook in the river even if the number goes over the MSY upper point?

    No Woodsman I am not a paid advertisement - just someone who knows something about this fishery as compared the positions you have taken. Coho returns were good last year because the return was good. If you want to look at the drift harvest rate is ranges from 10-20% on coho and that means 80-90% make to the river. Your perception of what happens in the valley is flawed - sorry but you have no idea on the status of the coho returns and fishing patterns.

    Relative to economic value the studies you cite have been totally discredited by real professionals in economic evaluations. It may pay for you to listen to Gunner Knapp presentation to the legislature on this subject.

    You close it down theory has no connection with reality. Sorry, but your 32 years have been wasted in observation if you keep posting factually incorrect information.

    Finally, I did not say that one user group social values were better or worse than another - only that commercial fishing is not just measured by fish harvested.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Woodsman View Post
    This "deep" connection with the resource and lifestyle that NERKA so consistently defends is no deeper than the lifestyles that have been ended or ruined in the sport fishing lodge & guiding industry or in the personal use of salmon in the UCI.

    In-stream escapement in the UCI is a phantom of its former number with respect to fish. Equivocate all you want.

    I find the whole idea of C&R unacceptable at this time. If the resource is so minimal as to make a concession to C&R then close king salmon fishing in the entire UCI to commercial and personal use/sport fishing of all kinds for now.

    King fishing should be banned for now in the UCI and the run protected when they are in the inlet by forbidding any kind of catch of kings.

    To say that the lifestyle of a sett netter or drift net fisherman is any better than a boot-strap sport fishing lodge owner is getting more than nauseating to constantly read. It is in fact insulting to the intelligence and hard stomach.

    A recent economic study of sport and personal use fishing in the Mat-Su (UCI) indicates without a doubt that the economic and social returns of in-stream salmon escapement are greater than the value of those fish caught commercially in the UCI where those UCI streams and escapement are located. It is tiresome to hear about the plight of the com fish industry constantly repeated by NERKA. What are you? A paid advertisement?

    In the same vane, last year the UCI finally got a decent in-stream return of cohos of a decent size. The season started out with a return of small cohos that nearly all (as usual) had net scars. When the commercial fishing window was closed, in-stream fishermen and the resource finally saw larger cohos returning and good fishing, personal use, sport fish, C&R etc. for the people and wild systems in those many Mat-Su waters.

    I've been watching this occur for the last 32 years on Mat-Su streams. Close the fishing in the inlet and shazam! we get cohos and nice ones too.

    Again, the in-stream value of those kings and cohos far exceed the economic and social value of commercial fishing in the UCI affected waters. Fact.

    Its time for those folks to share in the misery as we all wait for and hope for the return of our kings. Personal use or what ever they call it at the mouths of those rivers along western UCI should be closed too. The resource is limiting. There is too much greed and room for management mistake. The politics of the situation is not conservation but vote taking.

    Just close it down. Time for others to reap the rewards of their own spotted owl they have created themselves.


    My comments apply to the northern most Upper Cook Inlet UCI), river systems including the entire Susitna, Little Susitna, Knik Arm, Beluga and other rivers north of the Kustatan peninsula.

    As usual Nerka you've some how (probably by mistake, huh?) totally misrepresented my post and the issue in your response.

    I have heard Gunnar Knapp in a video presentation. He is very experienced with commercial fishing economics but I wouldn't call on him to defend the rest of us. He and you Nerka are all commercial fishing, all the time.

    Instead of making grandiose statements (pfft! like we are going to believe you) why don't you add the link you reference, for us.

    I am in no way talking about the the Kenai River. The Mat-Su was mentioned at least once in my post. And, I have no ties to the Kenai Sport Fishing Association. I don't go there.

    When you are making your usual sweeping statements about the whole of the Upper Cook Inlet and especially the end of it, the northern, you really don't seem to know what you are talking about. You ought to fly out to Lake Creek, check out the Alexander, talk to the people that live and try to make a living along the Parks Highway from Houston to Byers Lake, see what their point of view is on the fishing.

    As usual, you only seem talk to people that think only as you do or to those you can bully with your attitude or demean with your words. Like that will shut us up....

    Check the weirs and catch reports on the Susitna River streams when the nets are in the water out in the inlet. Talk to the fishing lodges in the very large Susitna River system and see what they have to say, what they have been saying for years. I know you won't do it because they don't know "who you are". You won't get recognition from those folks, which is why you write as you do, and you have no insight what so ever with regard to those in-stream personal use fisheries in those rivers I listed. It would be nice if you did.

    I checked the charts and graphs Gunnar posted in one of his latest presentations given in Dillingham.

    It is apparent by his graphs that the Kings and cohos where ever his data was taken make up such a small, tiny little percentage of the commercial catch that if you close those two species to commercial fishing those boys would focus more on the bread & butter fish: sockeye or maybe pinks on a good price year.

    The economic opportunity with kings & cohos for sport fishing could be managed and regulated to provide a sport fishery that would totally eclipse the commercial fishery in value per pound not to mention in social and tourism opportunity and revenue to the state and those communities.

    Talk to ADF&G Sport Fish in Palmer, see what they have to say. I know you won't do it though.... You are too comfy with your attitude and not near willing enough to budge a little on the allocation.

    Sockeye salmon charters... what a hoot!
    That country was so hungry even the ravens were packin' a lunch.... HUNGRY I tell ya'!!

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskan Woodsman View Post
    My comments apply to the northern most Upper Cook Inlet UCI), river systems including the entire Susitna, Little Susitna, Knik Arm, Beluga and other rivers north of the Kustatan peninsula.

    As usual Nerka you've some how (probably by mistake, huh?) totally misrepresented my post and the issue in your response.

    I have heard Gunnar Knapp in a video presentation. He is very experienced with commercial fishing economics but I wouldn't call on him to defend the rest of us. He and you Nerka are all commercial fishing, all the time.

    Instead of making grandiose statements (pfft! like we are going to believe you) why don't you add the link you reference, for us.

    I am in no way talking about the the Kenai River. The Mat-Su was mentioned at least once in my post. And, I have no ties to the Kenai Sport Fishing Association. I don't go there.

    When you are making your usual sweeping statements about the whole of the Upper Cook Inlet and especially the end of it, the northern, you really don't seem to know what you are talking about. You ought to fly out to Lake Creek, check out the Alexander, talk to the people that live and try to make a living along the Parks Highway from Houston to Byers Lake, see what their point of view is on the fishing.

    As usual, you only seem talk to people that think only as you do or to those you can bully with your attitude or demean with your words. Like that will shut us up....

    Check the weirs and catch reports on the Susitna River streams when the nets are in the water out in the inlet. Talk to the fishing lodges in the very large Susitna River system and see what they have to say, what they have been saying for years. I know you won't do it because they don't know "who you are". You won't get recognition from those folks, which is why you write as you do, and you have no insight what so ever with regard to those in-stream personal use fisheries in those rivers I listed. It would be nice if you did.

    I checked the charts and graphs Gunnar posted in one of his latest presentations given in Dillingham.

    It is apparent by his graphs that the Kings and cohos where ever his data was taken make up such a small, tiny little percentage of the commercial catch that if you close those two species to commercial fishing those boys would focus more on the bread & butter fish: sockeye or maybe pinks on a good price year.

    The economic opportunity with kings & cohos for sport fishing could be managed and regulated to provide a sport fishery that would totally eclipse the commercial fishery in value per pound not to mention in social and tourism opportunity and revenue to the state and those communities.

    Talk to ADF&G Sport Fish in Palmer, see what they have to say. I know you won't do it though.... You are too comfy with your attitude and not near willing enough to budge a little on the allocation.

    Sockeye salmon charters... what a hoot!
    Woodsman, personal attacks discredit you and not me. So that old saying " you cannot discuss anything rationale with a person who did not get to their position in a rational way" applies here I am afraid. I am not bullying anyone. Just pointing out flawed reasons for your position.


    Here is a link to Gunnar Knapp presentation. It concludes the studies cannot be used for allocation or policy justifications. It also points out that money spend is not the issue but whether it is new money. Resident Alaskans who spend money to sport fish will still spend money in Alaska on something. In contrast, commercial fishing brings in new money.

    http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/peopl...29_revised.pdf

    Close coho and kings and focus on Sockeye. The only problem is that if you close commercial fishing for coho you close it for sockeye - called a mixed stock fishery.

    Woodsman, you do not know what I know or who I know. I am very aware of the feelings and players in the valley. They think that harvest allocation will solve their problems. It will not. As I pointed out the commercial harvest is only 10-20% of the coho run. Closing the whole fishery will not change the perception of no fish on streams that cannot support a large population center.

    But we are off topic. May I suggest rather than taking shots at me you spend some time reading reports and talking with commercial fisheries managers in Soldotna. I know the Palmer staff and I read their reports and listen to them. If you want to read some estimates of coho into the Susitna River read the mark/recapture study reports. I think you perception on the amount of fish will be changed. Also, look at the distribution and see what is available to the average angler.

    On the Kenai River sockeye salmon charters are a growing industry. Sorry but your knowledge base is a little flawed on this one.

    Relative to the Little Susitna River maybe you could focus some energy on hydrocarbon and turbidity pollution and get the State to list these systems as impaired.

    Relative to the other streams you listed I think you know northern pike are a major problem - failed to mention that for some reason - not sure why?

    We are off topic here so maybe if you want to continue you should start a new thread.

  16. #16
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default J. F. C.

    Barbless discussion going on as I type...

    Staff keep referring back to "best practices" for C&R and they would support and promote angler education to achieve those "best practices".

    J F C... BARBLESS is part of best practices when releasing fish. Education is horribly inefficient in effectuating the desired outcome. JUST MAKE IT LAW and you'll get the result you want.

    Thank you Mr Kluberton for the voice of reason. At the very least, BARBLESS should be the law of the land anytime the fishery goes to NON-retention
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  17. #17
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Go Kluberton... amendment to go BARBLESS when Kenai goes to king NON-retention.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  18. #18
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Go Johnstone for keeping the discussion alive!

    "Let's do it right. Recess to continue comprehensive discussion on what constitutes "barbless".
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    442

    Default

    I was in the BOF meeting a couple hours when I could break away from another meeting in Anchorage.

    This session is very important and changes will be affected that last for years to come. I am guardedly optomistic (happy?) with the results so far. Changing the allocation and implementing C&R protocols should work. I'm still more in favor of closing the entire northern most systems of the UCI to King fishing for sport and the Kenai too if needs be. It will be a nightmare for ADF&G to enforce the rules with C&R and barbless hooks.

    The point is king conservation, not equivocating ourselves at cross purposes to ineffectiveness. There would be too much room for cheating and still be legal in a court of law.

    I think if closures make it infeasible for commercial fishermen to fish full on for reds, then so be it. King fishing is kaput for us! Instream fishermen have had to bare the brunt of poor returns like no other AND I realize the com folks have been hard hit too. Hey! I hope your boat is paid off same as I hope those folk with the fishing lodges have their lodges paid off too because they are down 70%. You can only take some one out for the EXPERIENCE for so long.

    Kings will shine again. But not if we keep accidentally catching them. Use big barbless single hooks and don't fish for them when they are red. Maybe that will work. Pray for a better cycle....
    That country was so hungry even the ravens were packin' a lunch.... HUNGRY I tell ya'!!

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Awesome, so MORE chances for C&R to rip Chinooks off of spawning beds, disrupt mating, exhaust fish......and for what? this barbless hook stuff while ok in not harming the fish simply covers the larger playing with fish in spawning habitat issue. If we want to protect in times of low return......if it's actually needed (ER fish) then no in river impacts. Fish RV 11 and down, or something like that. C&R should have a daily limit of 1 fish as well if it occurs.

    There are obvious negative impacts and unfairness in catch and release fishing as it's used on the Kenai for Chinooks. Like anyone who does it on ER fish actually "cares about the fish" pfffft.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •